Successors to the Deep Sea Drilling Poject.
Geologists, wait for it, Geophysicists, Paleontologists (diatoms, radiolaria, etc. for dating sediments) Paleoclimatologists. You think those geophysicists might know something about the Earth’s magnetic field? Since it provides some of the essential knowledge about plate tectonics and dating of sea floor spreading?

Look at the faces and names involved; more than just “Japanese and Easterners.” Big expensive science with a very large ship.

Homework indeed. Brain the size of a planet.

I’m not a big fan of popular science, but at least the Japanese or Easterners are at least attempting to do the data gathering required to create an accurate model of the Earth’s internals.

When people in the West tell me “we know this is true because scientists created a computer model of it based upon assumptions and untested hypothesis”, a lot of people will buy that, I know. Not everyone.

The reality is that birds like parrots and crows are smarter than their bigger brained apes and monkeys.

Even if their intelligence was about on par or equal to each other, it would not support the hypothesis that brain size is linked to intelligence.

This is merely the result of people not doing their homework.

You should read up on this subject, check out the link above, if you want to engage in a scientific discussion of these topics.

People like you need to put in some work to pay attention and do your homework, otherwise you won’t be able to perform well on various topics.

For people that don’t have the background for this topic.

How thick is the earth’s core?
1. Inner Core – A mass of iron with a temperature of about 7000 degrees F. Although such temperatures would normally melt iron, immense pressure on it keeps it in a solid form. The inner core is approximately 1,500 miles in diameter. 2. Outer Core – A mass of molten iron about 1,425 miles deep that surrounds the solid inner core. Electrical currents generated from this area produce the earth’s magnetic field.

The orthodox model claims as a hypothesis that a liquid core generates electrical currents to produce a magnetic field. In order to test that hypothesis, an experiment is needed. Since people cannot drill past the crust, not even close, as they still have 3900 + x miles to go to the core, the normal solution is to build a simulated model and put the hypothesis to the test on the model.

https://physics.aps.org/story/v5/st20

There is a tentative way to duplicate the mechanism of the theory. I suppose people didn’t mention it because they aren’t used to the rigor of scientific testing of hypothesis and theories.

Molten iron and nickel oozing within the Earth are thought to generate the magnetic field that points compass needles northward. But despite an elaborate theoretical explanation for the field generation process, researchers have been unable to create a so-called fluid dynamo of their own. Now, after 25 years of work, a Latvian-German collaboration reports in the 8 May PRL that they have finally created a magnetic field the same way the Earth does, providing clear confirmation of the theory.

Many of us have built electromagnets by wrapping wire around an iron bar and attaching a battery. Such a “technical dynamo” is quite different from a fluid dynamo, explains Gunter Gerbeth of the Rossendorf Research Center in Dresden, Germany. “A fluid dynamo has no external source of electrical current,” he says, because it’s a closed system. But under the right conditions, an isolated fluid—when stirred properly—can maintain electric currents and magnetic fields, although the system needs a small “seed” field to get started. The Earth’s magnetic field, for example, is continuously regenerated by electric currents in the swirling molten metal of the outer core, which is trapped between the mantle and the solid inner core.

Those with electrical engineering backgrounds would have understood why I was asking about liquid metal vis a vis an EM field.

The current geophysics theory was made without any model backing it. And the current advancements are no enough to confirm the theory either, unless people believe liquid sodium is what makes up the mantle and core…

Even after the liquid dynamo is constructed, tests must still be carried out to measure if the model creates the same scaled EM field strength as the earth. Even if the mechanism is plausible, it does not mean the model is correct.

After all, Global Warming or Cooling is feasible or plausible, but it does not mean humans caused it. The hypothesis is precisely correct or incorrect based on the details and the test results.

When science becomes a religion, people adopt hypothesis and theories as Holy Scripture that cannot be questioned.

Does not solve the magnetic field issue.

Are you in possession of a liquid electro magnetic device that creates a magnetic field using a liquid metal inside wrapped wires?

When there are no engineering valid models, then your thesis claim does not work.

Engineering projects often create scaled down models of things like bridges, because the same principle that works up scale should work when down scaled. Same for boats and planes. A plane the length of my arm works on the same principles as that of something 100 or 1000x larger. The materials may need to be modified due to additional stresses, but beyond that, miniature models mimic exactly the performance of larger models.

The temperature and pressure on the core is not measured directly. It is only through a computer model of the earth, same as Global Warming and climate technology. In some ways, Gaia cult has more data on weather patterns and temperatures than people have on the Earth’s core. How do you get temperature and pressure readings when you have no way to get past even the crust?

The model says there are ways, like using waves. That’s like thinking if we measure the temperature of the earth using radio, our weather predictions for global warming/cooling will be accurate. People’s computer model predictions aren’t even accurate when we directly measure the temperature of the Earth, because we can access it, let alone for things we cannot access.

So no, there is no such thing as “the core is solid because it must be”. Nobody knows any such thing especially given the absence of data. Models are merely models, they are not data.

It’s more like glass; it flows in geological time scales but can pinch-hit for solid.

When was the last time people obtained a sample from the mantle? As for volcanoes, well if people are making assumptions on whether the mantle is solid or x based upon solidified magma, maybe they should not do that.

The earth’s core contains iron and nickel which are ferromagnetic elements, and also uranium. 4.5 billion years since the earth’s formation, it is the radioactivity of the uranium that keeps the interior molten and maintains the magnetic field.

That’s like me saying I know what is going on inside Tom’s computer and room and house/apartment, by using a predictive model from this side of the computer screen.

Until I enter your room and open up your computer, kind of hard to make those claims or verify the truth. Your claims are on the same level of accuracy and data.

There has not been and never has been, a direct data analysis of the Earth’s mantle, let alone the core. People talk about it as if they know it is true, but as I detailed, there’s a problem with their epistemology. Just because somebody wrote it in a book does not mean it now becomes scripture and our religion: although humans seem to act like that all the time.

People will “know” there is uranium in the mantle and what or where the core is, when they drill down there and get a direct sample. More data is better than no data.

Because of how earthquake waves propagate.

I’ve heard that line before but it doesn’t work. Again, that would be like global warming cultists saying they know the future because they indirectly measured temperature with radio waves or light frequencies. Well, that is data I suppose, but that is not an exclusive conclusion.

The data on earthquakes do not exclusively point to the conclusion of a solid core. There are many things that could be causing or explaining the data. Putting up a false dichotomy and multiple choice, and restricting every other option in existence, and saying “X data shows that Y is true” is not valid evidence for a hypothesis. Especially when Y is not verified to be true.

This isn’t even the classic problem of observing the color of birds. 99 birds of one type can be black, but it does not mean all birds of that type are black. Humanity hasn’t even accessed or obtained data on the Earth’s core. They have only obtained data on earthquakes, which is crustal movement of plates and other things according to the orthodox interpretation. It would be equivalent to me tapping on my computer screen and concluding that I now know what size and composition your chair leg is made out of. The guess might be correct but it is just a guess based upon the feedback of the data.

The kind of waves that can’t exist in liquids, get blocked by or bounce off the core. The kinds of waves that can exist in liquids get refracted at the interface, and from that refraction you can get that a) it’s a liquid and b) how dense it is.

Except the current orthodox standard model has liquid magma and a molten mantle plus other things, between your waves on the crust and the target core. So how do you know the refraction interference waves you are getting is indicative of the core vs the mantle, the mantle vs the crust, and the molten metal vs the liquid metal?